Category Archives: Week 9: Introduction to the Environmental Humanities & the Blue Humanities

Week 9: The Thing about “The Thing in Itself”

Posted on by
3

Our reading for this week references philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “das Ding an sich”–or “the thing in itself.” “The thing in itself” refers to an individual’s difficulty to truly comprehend an object because of the meanings and definitions attached to the object. Those meanings and definitions, which differ from person to person, cloud the “prior truth” attached to the object.

It’s an interesting way of viewing the world as this school of thought asks its student to examine their personal biases, but it’s also an incredibly removed and admittedly-Western way of viewing the world. The text states: “…every object and being is defined by its relationships. It is part of networks and only has meaning in relation to its surroundings. Scientists studying nature had sought to know the “thing in itself” and to isolate an organism in a cage or a glass container. Yet to grasp fully any form of life requires studying it in its habitat, where its existence is defined by relations with others of the same species, and by the plants, animals, insects, and microscopic organisms that share its environment. As the analysis becomes more detailed, it must include more and more about the environment, including the climate, food sources, predators, competitors, procreation, and so on.” (9)

In essence, this means that no object exists in a vacuum and its meaning comes from the things that surround it. A spool of thread and a shirt aren’t just two separate objects that happen to be in proximity; there’s a story that can be created around these two objects. One could say the spool of thread was used to fix a hole in the shirt or that the thread was used to sew together the parts of the shirt. We could even go as far as to say that the spool of thread might be embroidery floss and could be used to embroider a pattern on the shirt. The individual meanings of a shirt as a garment and canvas for creation and a spool of thread as a tool for creativity and creation are only created because of each object’s relation to each other.

This relational existence is what makes the conversation about humans, anthropocentrism, and the environmental humanities’ denouncement of said anthropocentrism so interesting. While we as a species have created a lot of problems for nature by distancing ourselves from it, we have also still made ourselves a part of it through our interference. Have you ever seen what a banana or watermelon looked like before humans came up with GMOs, natural or otherwise? Nature shapes us just as much as we shape nature and human interference, in a way, becomes a part of nature.

Reading post: Week 9

Posted on by
2
When reading the Emergence of the environmental humanities, it was very interesting to hear more about the effects we humans have on the environment. As the first section we read discusses the human effects on the earth and environment, and how the way we are living is not sustainable for the earth to thrive. I like how this article points out the fact that researchers and scientists can help identify the problems of o overconsumption and human affects on the earth, but they alone can not change it. This is a very important point a lot of people miss, because a small group of the population cannot solve this crisis, the article states “Solutions will require political and cultural expertise as well” (pg. 1). Not only do political and cultural changes need to be made, but other people need to make this effort to change and adapt as well. When trying to make these solutions in our cities and homes, the public, scientists, and excerpts need to be consulted before big cooperations try to be “eco-friendly.” This is a point that is talked about numerous times in this article, as efficient change cannot be made without efficient resources and consults, in order to do the job right. It states in the article “That brings us to a final strongly held position across the environmental humanities: that humanists use offer constructive knowledge as well as criticism” (pg. 2). This is the point of the article, they are not saying they have the solutions but they are saying that if more people consult humanists for solutions and criticism, progress could be made. I really liked the display of knowledge in this article, after every statement or argument the authors made we’re backed up with facts. Not only was this beneficial to their claim, but also to help me better understand the humanists too. The evolution of ecologists, scientists, and humanist’s is how we have gotten to where we are today, and society needs to turn to them for assistance. This goes through the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and etc, which helps paint a picture on the evolution of their knowledge. The environmental humanities was shaped postcolonial and feminist studies, shaping the ideas that have evolved today. These new ideas challenged some of the older ones, about the environment and such, shaping the way people think today. I found this evolution and aspect very interesting the read about. and see how it has effected new ideas today.

Week 9: Politics and the Environment

Posted on by
2

“The Emergence of Environmental Humanities” by Robert Emmett and David Nye defines environmental humanities as an interdisciplinary field that explores humans’ relationship with the environment through the lens of humanities such as history, philosophy, political theory, and art. Emmett and Nye advocate for integrating humanities with natural and social sciences, as doing so will help develop more sustainable and effective solutions to the current environmental crisis. One observation I found particularly interesting was how corruption in government and politics has obstructed efforts to address environmental issues.

On page two, Emmett and Nye write about a plan established in 2010 that called for an “ecological community of 50,000 to be built on marshy land near Shanghai” (2). However, “nothing was built” as “local farmers [and scientists] were never consulted” and “the politicians involved were removed after fraud convictions” (2). Such examples demonstrate politicians’ failure to understand the complexity of environmental sustainability. Creating policies without consulting those most knowledgeable about the environmental impact of human activities prevents policymakers— and the general public— from making effective informed decisions. Politicians’ “agendas” and “initial goals” are “affected by political ideologies and economic interests” (5). Those who hold the power to make substantial change prioritize short-term gains or personal interests over the long-term health of the environment. This leads to neglect of pressing environmental issues like pollution, deforestation, and global warming.

Politicians’ skewed priorities have led to a disconnect with the public. Emmett and Nye argue that “the environmental humanities [enact] a positive response to complex social-environmental issues” (9). This is because “writers, photographers, and artists” hold the ability “to communicate the complex relationships of societies and their environment” (7). For example, a photographer might use images to document environmental degradation and the communities affected by it. These images provide visual evidence of the interconnectedness of human and environmental dynamics. Additionally, political corruption often results in the marginalization of vulnerable communities such as indigenous populations or those in poverty. Emmett and Nye observe that while there is some effort to help the enviornment, there is a lack of consideration for how these efforts “affect the poor and ethnic minorities” (17). For example, “toxic waste sites were located near communities of African Americans” (17). The failure to consider the interconnectedness of the enviornment and social issues results in policies that exacerbate rather than alleviate the burdens of current sustainability efforts.

Overall, Emmett and Nye’s observations underscore the urgent need for environmental efforts to connect with the humanities— highlighting how systemic inequality and political corruption prevent humanity from connecting with the natural world.

The Emergence of the Environmental Humanities

Posted on by
4

“We have not searched for straw men to demolish; rather, we
have focused on what seems the most intriguing and potentially productive
approaches.” The closing statement of the introduction suggests that the authors would like to provide an observation of some environmental humanities approaches in the past. One early criticism that I have is that it was claimed very early on that environmental humanities as a field has only been around for the last one hundred years. Although the article does discuss the exploitation of indigenous/native people in the US (including the creation of national parks), it fails to give much context to the Western creation of science. I think it would be useful for readers to understand some of the practices that indigenous peoples have passed down to preserve their local communities. For us to see the whole picture, we need to realize why the concept of environmental humanities was even created. Last time I checked, Native Americans weren’t given much credit for their ability to exist symbiotically with their surrounding environment. This concept of Environmental Humanities seems to cover the scale of the whole Earth because we now have a globe that is connected not only physically by roads but a vast network of communication creating a place with little isolation. Because of this, it creates the assumption that the Environment includes everything on Earth. Now more than ever, actions that affect the environment on a local scale may cause some environmental damage on a large scale.

I like the dilemma of conservation brought up by the authors. It’s a difficult question to answer sometimes. Do we conserve this so-called pristine wilderness and kick out those who have been living symbiotically in that area? In Africa, there have been issues of gorilla conservation which requires locals to be removed from the land they’ve always lived on. Do we value the gorillas more than the livelihood of our own kind? Where do we draw the line of morality when it comes to conservation? I’d like to see what happens in the future of conservation and preservation, the balance has proven difficult.

Week Nine Reading Response

Posted on by
1

It occurs to me, after this week’s reading, that I knew nothing about what the environmental humanities were. I am thinking that the environmental humanities seem like a response to some of the important points of our reading of Cronon last week. Reading “The Emergence of Environmental Humanities” further solidifies some of our discussion point from last week. Western views of our relationship with nature are deeply narrow and do not allow for the communication and open mindedness required to provide solutions to our ecological problems. It’s no coincidence that the study of environmental humanities grew through the contributions of different fields of study like gender and indigenous studies both being intersectional studies that try to de-centralize the western narratives. On discussing what topics are covered by the study of humanities the text says, “a new range of concepts emerged that provide a framework for environmental humanities, such as ecoracism, environmental justice, ‘naturecultures,’ the environmentalism of the poor and the posthuman.” It never occurred to me how important these topics are when considering environmentalism and that new technology is not always the only answer or even the answer to our environmental crisis. I like how the text mentions that science does not always consider the knowledge that is readily available to us. I remember discussing early in the semester how indigenous peoples have so much knowledge of the land that has been dismissed by science as nothing but folklore without actually considering what knowledge they have to offer. It is how we learn that controlled fires in a forest are necessary to bring about new life.

 I have recently read Greg Grandin’s book “The end of the Myth” and in it he re-contextualizes the conditions that led to the dustbowl famine during the great depression. A big part of the reason for the famine was the destroying of land by unsustainable farming practices used for the production of cotton. The book explores the idea that plantation owners were not interested in sustainability of farming because the myth of the frontier gave them a false sense of confidence that when the land was spent they could just extend further west. Pairing this book with the topics being discussed in this class helps reinforce why environmental humanities are necessary.

Week 9: Environment Humanities

Posted on by
1

This weeks reading, “The Emergence of Environmental Humanities”, adds to and further expands on topics we discussed last week. The book traces the emergence of environmental humanities, tracings it back from when the field first originated in the 1970s and 80s, through not just the field of science, but also through fields of literature, philosophy, history, geography, gender studies, and anthropology. The author argues that in order to find a solution to climate change, “It is imperative to abandon narrow disciplinary traditions in order to grasp these interconnections” (4). Meaning, the solution is not singular, science, math, literature, art, etc. are not separate, but connected. Touching on our class last week, “Human beings are not independent of the natural world, but are part of it” (9). Similarly, we cannot separate disciplines and then expect to find the solution. To understand the environment, all things must be taken into account: environmental humanities.

The global environmental crisis we are facing requires new ways of thinking, “the crisis cannot be addressed solely by finding technological solutions”, but rather an, “interdisciplinary approach to environmental change that includes the humanities, the arts, and the sciences” (7). We must bridge the academic barriers between humanities and sciences. This interdisciplinary approach applies to ideas we have known since we were young. For example, the acronym STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), is being proposed to be expanded to STEAM to “recognize how the arts contribute to inventiveness in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics”. Storytelling, visual, and various kinds of art media through historians, writers, photographers, artists have constantly been used to “communicate the complex relationships of societies and their environment” throughout history (7).

The book also discusses the cultural/ethical implications of environmental humanities and our history with nature. Environmental humanities did not evolve from only early Western thinkers, but rather the “field has been shaped by postcolonial and feminist studies and by scholars working outside of Europe and the United States” (4). Westerners often hold an implicitly racialized ideas of the natural world: white, male, European. In policy discussions of climate change, unequal social relations and exploitation of resources often go undiscussed, revealing the importance of including the humanities in these discussions.

The book comes back to last weeks topic of untouched, pristine, and almost virginal ideas of wilderness. Yet, this pristine wilderness never existed, in order to get there, Native Americans had to be removed, “the notion of a pure, untouched wilderness implied that no human beings had ever lived there…when creating American national parks in the nineteenth century, to remove Native Americans from sites such as Yosemite and Yellowstone” (18). Again, the inclusion of all disciplines is imperative to such issues.

Understanding the Ocean: Art vs. Science

Posted on by
1

While reading The Blue Humanities, by John R. Gillis, I kept thinking about the relationship between art and science.

I believe that both art and science are ultimately trying to accomplish the same goal – albeit by taking different steps. To me, the goal of art is to spread awareness and an overall understanding of any specific issue or topic by creating something an audience can observe and explore with their imagination. Whether its a movie, song, painting, etc. it is my understanding that art is to be carefully crafted in order to raise a question in the viewers mind that they are supposed to answer for themselves. Science, seems to be the opposite. Where art aims to ask questions, science wants to provide an answer. Science produces theories that are meant to be tested and experimented with to get the greatest understanding of the subject as possible.

So where does the Ocean come in with all of this? Well, with the ocean being so vast and mysterious – it is no question why so many works of art have been produced with the ocean being the main character. It’s unpredictable and violent while also being calm and serene. It is the perfect canvas to paint upon the fears, desires, and wonders of the human mind. But how does writing a book affect the ocean? Making a movie? Writing a song? The biggest influence art has on the ocean is how we view this integral part of our world. Could it lead us to wanting to investigate it.

Where we observe the ocean through art, we could disrupt it with science. While we can learn a lot about the ocean through research, there’s a difference between observing it as it currently exists and observing it with a plethora of variables. Human beings have an impact on everything they decide to get themselves involved with. I am not against science in the slightest, but I do tend to associate the urge we have to “understand” the world around us with the tendancy to try and control it. I think that we cant fathom the perfectly chaotic synergy of the Natural World. We require structure in our lives to make the world go ’round, so we intend to implement that structure on a world that would be better off without it. The way I see it, we are product of the Natural World, but we are in no way a part of it. I dont think we can return to it, so ultimately this debate on whether understanding the world through art is better than doing so through science or vice versa is rather moot.

Sorry for the downer post, I’ve just been chasing this idea around in my head and reading The Blue Humanities somehow made the idea click into place.

Week 9: The Human in Humanities Environmental Issues

Posted on by
Reply

For this weeks’ blog I wanted to focus on the key point made in The Emergence of the Environmental Humanities: that humans are the cause and answer to environmental issues that plague the world. Humans are, and have always been, and invasive species to the planet; we drive cars that produce lots of CO2 emissions, we overfish the sea, we destroy land to create homes, and so on. The article, early on, states how, “—[the] current consumption of the earth’s resources is not sustainable” (MIT, 1) and that this issue is not fixable by scientists alone. The writers of this essay essentially say that in order to fix this issue we need to convince humans to go along with a solution by catering to them and highlighting the profitability. This leads me to my underlying point that in a capitalistic world, one where you will not show up to your next shift if you receive nothing but knowing you are contributing to the betterment of society, the globally impacting environmental issues will never be resolved in a world full of narrow minded individuals. For example, as an average citizen it is hard to grasp the idea that I alone can do anything about the carbon emissions cars produce every day because even with the invention of new electrically powered cars, it doesn’t mean that me or the next person will have the money to buy one. Therefore the writers then touch on the idea that in order for an environmentally forward shift in any aspect of every day life to have an effect, the new shift must take note of “— adequate insight into the historical and cultural context of a proposed solution” (MIT, 2). This problem is a human made problem that will take everyone’s opinions, outlooks, and ideas to be contributed if we ever want to make any sort of real, positive, change in our environment. Humans are very emotionally wired beings, so if we can get people to care about this issue AND make it make the most practical sense, only then will change have the potential to occur; without those two qualities, humans cannot be bothered and we will ride the Earth until it’s’ wheels fall off.

Week 9 — AI Modeling an Eco-Friendly World

Posted on by
1

This week’s reading was super interesting to me and I found that I enjoyed the author’s approach in that they basically say here are the ways that we think are best to view/treat the environment and here are their drawbacks. They clearly stated in the beginning too that they are not out to destroy or dissect any bad ideas, it’s really just pooling what they believe are some of the best approaches. For my blog post, I want to talk about something that my roommate sent me off of reddit the other day and how it relates to this reading. I liked their introduction to explaining how environmental humanities will become a prevalent study in the near future. It reads, “Carolyn Merchant has argued that “a partnership ethic would bring humans and non-human nature into a dynamically balanced, more nearly equal relationship.” Such a new ethic requires a new narrative. This new story “would not accept the idea of sub-duing the earth, or even dressing and keeping the garden, since both entail total domestication and control by human beings. Instead, each earthly place would be a home, or community, to be shared with other living and non-living things” (Emerret, page 6). The other day my roommate sent me this link where someone asked Chat-GPT to “describe a world where the power structures are reversed. Add descriptions for images to accompany the text”. If you click on the link I would hope you are as baffled and interested as I am. It’s interesting to see in this world that we cohabit the environment with nature, opposed to the typical western approach of conquering the environment. Seeing cities and houses that look equally modern as they do ‘nature-ish’ is a wild sight, and in my opinion would be a sick world to live in. My only contingencies in this world is that for starters, I think it would be nearly impossible to get each and every person on earth on this same level of understanding and appreciation towards the environment, especially losing the emphasis on monetary growth in large corporations. Secondly, and what scares me the most, is a world that is predominantly run by AI. I think the concept of AI having no biases is super cool and could be extremely powerful, but in a nutshell someone has to create and train that AI model, and if fed with some level of bias it will inevitably surface in its decision making. But who knows, AI will continue to develop, peoples opinions around: money, positions of power, and environmental relationship could also be subject to change allowing room for this type of society in our world at some point in our future. If anyone checks out the link, let me know what you think! Is it a world you would want to live in? Is it a realistic future? 

Week 9: Environmental Humanities

Posted on by
2

Chapter 1 of the book “The Environmental Humanities: A Critical Introduction,” edited by Robert S. Emmett and David E. Nye. The Environmental Humanities is an interdisciplinary field that explores the relationship between humans and the environment through various lenses. What stuck with me from the reading was that, “Human beings do not have special rights relative to other species. Rather than view animals and plants in terms of their usefulness to humanity, we can see them as having an intrinsic right to exist. And when an entire form of life disappears, its loss diminishes human culture too.” (Nye, 11) They argue against the idea that humans have special rights over other species and advocate for acknowledging the intrinsic value of animals and plants. By emphasizing the intrinsic value of non-human life forms, the authors promote a more holistic and ethical approach to environmental management. They highlight the interconnection of all life forms, arguing that the extinction of an entire species or ecosystem has ecological effects as well as a negative impact on human culture. Species extinction can destroy cultural legacy, disrupt traditional traditions, and reduce the variety of human experiences and viewpoints.

I agree with the authors that humans should not feel themselves superior to other creatures. Instead, we should acknowledge the inherent worth of all living beings. By considering animals and plants to have an inherent right to exist, we recognize their role in preserving ecological balance and biodiversity. Furthermore, I agree that the extinction of a species has far-reaching cultural consequences in addition to environmental ones. Every species contributes to our world’s richness and diversity, and their extinction reduces the fabric of human civilization as well.